I only slowed by 30 minutes in the marathon from 25 to 64: from 2:30 (altitude converted) to 3:00, and my HM time slowed only by about 7 minutes ca. 1:10 (also altitude converted) from 24 to 61 (1:17). Certified courses. I'm just a old schlub, typically derided on letsrun for being slow and a hobby jogger, but don't do drugs.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, you don't have a lot to stand on, re: speculation of drug use.
That's impressive stamina, running a marathon at greater than 96% of 5k pace. 96% of a 13:00 5k would be about 1:54 for a marathon. A 2:00 marathon would be worth only about a 13:38 5k. Unless I got the math wrong.
A 2:36 marathon is probably achievable by a runner who can run 14-15 min for 5k. Nothing for a 65 year old.
a 16 5k runner could certainly run 2:36 for a marathon.
but following your logic - that a 64 old can't run a 2:36 marathon, then the 64 yr old who held the record at 2:42 without super shoes must have also been also been doping.
Tommy at the 1990 Dublin Marathon. Finishes 3rd. Running in Sub4 kit. Running form hasn't changed at all/little. Is Tommy the ultimate super shoe super responder due to his unique running form?
I only slowed by 30 minutes in the marathon from 25 to 64: from 2:30 (altitude converted) to 3:00, and my HM time slowed only by about 7 minutes ca. 1:10 (also altitude converted) from 24 to 61 (1:17). Certified courses. I'm just a old schlub, typically derided on letsrun for being slow and a hobby jogger, but don't do drugs.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, you don't have a lot to stand on, re: speculation of drug use.
3:00 isn't anywhere near 2:36 at 65. As I said, I don't believe it.
A 2:36 marathon is probably achievable by a runner who can run 14-15 min for 5k. Nothing for a 65 year old.
a 16 5k runner could certainly run 2:36 for a marathon.
but following your logic - that a 64 old can't run a 2:36 marathon, then the 64 yr old who held the record at 2:42 without super shoes must have also been also been doping.
this is not evidence - it is pure speculation.
you have nothing
I have a dirty sport and a runner who has recorded 2:36 at age 65, only twenty or so minutes slower than his best over thirty years ago, which I don't find credible. Quoting other runners at me also means nothing as you don't know whether they were clean, either.
You do know that alcoholics remain alcoholics - it is a lifelong issue for them? But a perfect recipe it seems for being a world age-group record holder.
You do know that your views are antiquated? You do know that you are wrong? You do know that you are a slimy coward, accusing Tommy of doping without revealing your name?
You do realise a personal attack and nothing more is conceding the argument?
I only slowed by 30 minutes in the marathon from 25 to 64: from 2:30 (altitude converted) to 3:00, and my HM time slowed only by about 7 minutes ca. 1:10 (also altitude converted) from 24 to 61 (1:17). Certified courses. I'm just a old schlub, typically derided on letsrun for being slow and a hobby jogger, but don't do drugs.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, you don't have a lot to stand on, re: speculation of drug use.
3:00 isn't anywhere near 2:36 at 65. As I said, I don't believe it.
You are the one arguing. Every day, with multiple people.
That's because you have multiple user names.
Hahahaha You are one of the most disliked posters ever. Whenever I come here there are always multiple threads where you are arguing with different people.
a 16 5k runner could certainly run 2:36 for a marathon.
but following your logic - that a 64 old can't run a 2:36 marathon, then the 64 yr old who held the record at 2:42 without super shoes must have also been also been doping.
this is not evidence - it is pure speculation.
you have nothing
I have a dirty sport and a runner who has recorded 2:36 at age 65, only twenty or so minutes slower than his best over thirty years ago, which I don't find credible. Quoting other runners at me also means nothing as you don't know whether they were clean, either.
But you're only here to bump up the thread which was going nowhere until you started trolling it.
Derek Turnbull at 65 would've clocked 2.36/37 in today's shoes. Derek also broke 5 for the mile at 65. Derek was known to dope on Black Mac beer on his sheep farm in the deep south of UnZid.
Martin Fiz of Spain, the 1995 World Champ in the marathon and a 2:08:05 guy, ran a 1:15:26 Half last month at age 61.
Fiz was a beast. I wondered what had happened to him. Good to see he's still kicking. As for Tommy, there are age-group wonders in both genders, and in all age brackets. Jeannie Rice just ran London in 3:33. She's 76. Per Haugen knocked out a 33:18 10K not long ago. Not bad, for age 12. Not likely that they're doped. Some people stand out on the world stage, others on the age-group stage. Let them serve as a source of inspiration, not suspicion.
I am the first guy to be suspicious of fast masters … an approach I will continue to “ride out” … (ahem). That said, this is believable to me.
1) He was elite when young. 2) He runs a sh!tlload of miles. 3) His performance is in a marathon.
That last point is key. Masters who are obvious dopers (riding it out?) get better overall. Guys who are not obvious dopers tend to figure out how to maximize one natural talent as they age. Think Pete Magill for the 5k (huge natural vo2).
Tommy is a beast at “threshold” and knows how to run a marathon. His relatively slow 5k times actually make it even more of a believable performance.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.